Bob Novak's Freak-Out on Live TV

[mirror]

Pressure getting to Novak?

So Bob Novak got up and walked out of a live CNN broadcast. What kind of professional decorum is that?

I suppose that the Special Counsel's investigation into the leaked info about Plame, a covert CIA agent, is creating a lot of stress for several right wingers in the US, and they are starting to crack under pressure. If one were one of the targets of a grand jury investigation, erratic behaviour is quite understandable.

[newbie]

Poor Bobby. He can sure dish it out, but flees like a chickenhawk when a little flame(or is that Plame) is applied.

[I miss Reagan]

I'm surprised he lasted this long surrounded almost entirely by neolibs. Maybe he likes the challenge of trying to keep CNN honest. Perhaps he should check out Al Jazeera next, they need some work.

[Black Dog]

Hey IMR, do you know what a neoliberal is?

[Shady]

I'm surprised he lasted this long surrounded almost entirely by neolibs. Maybe he likes the challenge of trying to keep CNN honest. Perhaps he should check out Al Jazeera next, they need some work

Exactly. It must be a true challenge to try and engage in intelligent discourse while being insulted by all the neolibs at the same time. I definitely wouldn't be able to keep my cool as long as Novak did.

[Black Dog]

Exactly. It must be a true challenge to try and engage in intelligent discourse while being insulted by all the neolibs at the same time. I definitely wouldn't be able to keep my cool as long as Novak did.

Hey Shady: do you know what a neoliberal is?

I think its cute that you guys are trying to invent a term to counteract the neoconservative label worn by so many Bush administration figures, but you should adopt one that isn't already in use.

Neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the economy (that complements private initiative), focusing instead on achieving progress by encouraging free-market methods and fewer restrictions on business operations and economic development. The "neo" in this case refers to the revitalization of the term over the past few decades after the brief dominance of kenysian economic theories.

It has nothing to do with socialism or progressive ideas.

[Shady]

That's not my interpretation of neoliberal. A neolib to me, is one who parts from the traditional liberal causes that liberalism stood for 20 and 30 years ago. It used to be that conservatives were the protectionists and isolationists, but now, the neolib has adopted that ideology. That's a neolib to me, despite how others may use the definition.

[Black Dog]

That's not my interpretation of neoliberal.  A neolib to me, is one who parts from the traditional liberal causes that liberalism stood for 20 and 30 years ago.  It used to be that conservatives were the protectionists and isolationists, but now, the neolib has adopted that ideology.  That's a neolib to me, despite how others may use the definition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's great that you have your own definition of words, but words are defined by common usage. The common usage and accepted meaning of "neoliberal" is at odds with your own. Keep using it, if you want, but no one will know what you're talking about and you'll look, well, like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

For example, you claim neoliberals believe inprotectionism and isolationism. Yet isolationism would be distinctly at odds with the belief in the total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services that is part of the neoliberal ideology, as are protectionist measures such as price controls or government regulation.

Neoliberalism is primarily a economic, market-centred concept. Neoconservatvism is primarily a political concept. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Basically, the people you are calling neoliberals are not neoliberals in the accepted sense of the word.

[shoop]

He is a jackass and clearly the pressure of the Plame case are getting to him.

I'm surprised that CNN is still running his column on their web site.

Guys like Novak make many Canadian conservatives cringe and the reason why the Canadian left's knee-jerk correlation between the Conservative Party of Canada and neo-cons in the U.S. is just lame and vacuous.

It is possible to support the CPC in Canada and the Democrats in the U.S. without any conflict whatsoever.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear shoop,

Guys like Novak make many Canadian conservatives cringe and the reason why the Canadian left's knee-jerk correlation between the Conservative Party of Canada and neo-cons in the U.S. is just lame and vacuous.

Not entirely, for Harper said he would have joined 'the coalition of the coerced' and sent Canadian troops into Iraq without a second (or first) thought. Then, many 'conservatives' have stated that we should join the missile defense system, replace the UN with NATO, etc...

In fact, if the Conservative party showed a little more pride in, and concern for Canada, instead of promising to 'drop their britches and bend over' at the whim of the US, they might even have a shot at the PMO. Just won't happen soon, with Harper in charge.

[shoop]

Not entirely, for Harper said he would have joined 'the coalition of the coerced' and sent Canadian troops into Iraq without a second (or first) thought. Then, many 'conservatives' have stated that we should join the missile defense system, replace the UN with NATO, etc...

In fact, if the Conservative party showed a little more pride in, and concern for Canada, instead of promising to 'drop their britches and bend over' at the whim of the US, they might even have a shot at the PMO. Just won't happen soon, with Harper in charge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is this related to anything else in this thread or Novak's comments?

Thank you for proving my point about the Canadian left's knee-jerk correlation between the Conservative Party of Canada and neo-cons in the U.S. is just lame and vacuous.

Your quote is weak and intellectually lacking. You harped on the same theme that has been gloated on repeatedly on this board. "Harper is bad, thank God he will never be Prime Minister." (I am soooo great and mighty in my moral superiority.)

To avoid fulfilling the stereotype of close-minded smugness why not actually find a way to bash Harper that is actually related to the thread?

ps. Your 'coalition of the coerced' tagline is soooo hip. Did Judy Rebick supply you with it personally?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear shoop,

How is this related to anything else in this thread or Novak's comments?

It is directly related to your comments..

and the reason why the Canadian left's knee-jerk correlation between the Conservative Party of Canada and neo-cons in the U.S.

perhaps you were inspired by divine rapture and don't recall writing it.

Thank you for proving my point about the Canadian left's knee-jerk correlation between the Conservative Party of Canada and neo-cons in the U.S. is just lame and vacuous.

Not entirely correct, though perhaps the entire CPC isn't behind Harper on these issues. So I have 'proved the point' that the comparisons are not 'empty'.

As to the CPC, I am somewhat 'conservative' myself. There are two reasons I haven't voted for them, though. My incumbent CPC MP is an unmitigated ass, and I don't believe Harper has what it takes to be PM(nor do the majority of canadians, obviously). I would like to see the Liberals gone, and believe the CPC would be the best alternative, but they need a new leader first.

As to Novak and the Plame case, It would appear Novak is exercising his fifth amendement rights. Rove declared "Wilson's wife is fair game", and now those some few responsible are playing 'pass the grenade' without implicating the others. The only thing Novak could do without directly lying is to avoid the question altogether.

[shoop]

perhaps you were inspired by divine rapture and don't recall writing it.

Ahhh, I see you stoop to another lame and vacuous stereotype about the CPC. Nothing in my post, or any of my posts, has been indicative of religious beliefs 'clouding' my political beliefs. But all the supporters of the CPC HAVE to be religious wing nuts. Do you truly favour the Charter's guarantees of religious freedom, or is it only for religions you 'approve' of?

As to the CPC, I am somewhat 'conservative' myself. There are two reasons I haven't voted for them, though. My incumbent CPC MP is an unmitigated ass, and I don't believe Harper has what it takes to be PM(nor do the majority of canadians, obviously). I would like to see the Liberals gone, and believe the CPC would be the best alternative, but they need a new leader first.

Hmmm, in that Environics poll released on July 28th no leader got even 1/3 of the support for "Best Choice for PM" question. Not even PM Dithers. So the majority of Canadians don't really think anybody has what it takes to be Prime Minister. Sure every party has jackasses for MPs. It's unfortunate the MP in your riding is a CPC jackass.

I think the federal Liberals are stagnant and corrupt. They have successful demonized Harper so far, to an extent. He did win 99 seats in an election that started with Martin talking about setting a record number of seats in the House. Is Harper perfect? Definitely not. But he does deserve one more shot.

Do me a favour and take a minute or two to open your mind. Go to the CPC web site and just take a look. If it confirms all the demonizing, great. But maybe, just maybe, you will see the party isn't as bad as the Liberals have painted them to be.

[Guest eureka]

Open your mind to a little simple arithmetic - or logic. Obviously, a majority of Canadians do think someone is "best" for PM. They just differ on who that would be. Is there any surprise in that the choice would be split on party lines?

[shoop]

Touche,

You are correct. Just used the simple logic to refute an earlier quote.

But what value is there in this line from thelonius then?

"I don't believe Harper has what it takes to be PM(nor do the majority of canadians, obviously)."

[Guest eureka]

The logic follows that it is a different question. Take away the supporting vote for Harper and there is probably none that would make him a second choice.

It could be different for the others. Polls on party support and second choice suggest that this may be the case.

Harper should go back to being supported by business for tilting at tax windmills and leave actual politics alone.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear shoop,

perhaps you were inspired by divine rapture and don't recall writing it.

Ahhh, I see you stoop to another lame and vacuous stereotype about the CPC. Nothing in my post, or any of my posts, has been indicative of religious beliefs 'clouding' my political beliefs

I don't believe you will find anything in any of my previous posts saying anything about the CPC being run by the 'religious right', and I did not intend that reference.

I suppose all of this should really be under a 'Harper' thread, so I'll get back to how Novak, and possibly Rove, should be going to jail.

[shoop]

The logic follows that it is a different question. Take away the supporting vote for Harper and there is probably none that would make him a second choice.

It could be different for the others. Polls on party support and second choice suggest that this may be the case.

Harper should go back to being supported by business for tilting at tax windmills and leave actual politics alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yaaaaawn. any support for your grand assertion about no support for Harper as second choice or links to your "polls on party support and second choice." Like an actual aticle or study or poll result perhaps? Is EVERYBODY who voted Liberal outside Quebec going to have Jack Layton as their second choice? Pretty counter-intuitive.

I don't believe you will find anything in any of my previous posts saying anything about the CPC being run by the 'religious right', and I did not intend that reference.

I suppose all of this should really be under a 'Harper' thread, so I'll get back to how Novak, and possibly Rove, should be going to jail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The rapture is a pretty central tenet to Christian belief (divine is redundant if using the term accurately). If you honestly didn't intend it as a slight to Christians so be it. But it is an extremely odd coincidence, pretty insulting and very easily interpreted the way I did. Funny how people tend to make mistakes like that, 'mistakenly' go a little too far with an insult, yet add fuel to an unfair stereotype in the process.... btw, what exactly did you mean by the reference? (The reference is also weak as the rapture would be more of an emotional state rather than a source of inspiration, so perhaps when you 'accidentally' use this insult in the future you would be better off saying "perhaps you were in the throws of rapture and don't recall writing it".) btw, If you take a second look at what you were replying to when spreading your ignorance and religious-bashing venom you will find that the sentence doesn't refer to the quote it follows, on top of being stereotypical and intolerant.

I can only hope sir that a substantial majority of Canadians are not as biased and bigoted as you. While you are feeling superior to that poor, stupid, 'religious wing nut' Stephen Harper, you should take a look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This document guarantees freedom of religion. While you may think you are simply dismissiong people who disagree with you politically by 'accidentally' insulting their religion - some of these people can see through your pomposity. Some of these people, who have actually graduated from high school, will turn the other cheek at your insults and trust in the collective common sense of the Canadian electorate as a whole to fairly and honestly examine Stephen Harper on his record, and not just on the attacks levelled at him by arrogant pseuod-intellectuals...

Back to the topic of the thread. Rove should absolutely lose his job, and face prosecution if the charges were true. Good enough to just get Novak off the air.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear shoop,

But it is an extremely odd coincidence, pretty insulting and very easily interpreted the way I did.

Understandable. I was going to use the word 'fugue', and could have used the phrase "whatever it is that you're smoking", and my 'joke' was meant to convey the notion that there was a direct reference to your quote, and that for some reason (supernatural or otherwise) you missed it.

If you take a second look at what you were replying to when spreading your ignorance and religious-bashing venom you will find that the sentence doesn't refer to the quote it follows, on top of being stereotypical and intolerant.

lol. Again, the perhaps poor choice of one word has been interpreted by you (and incorrectly) as the entire meaning of my post. The religious reference of 'rapture' doesn't even appear in most dictionaries, and in my Webster's College Dictionary, definition #3 reads: 'the feeling of being transported to another place or sphere of existence'. The other definitions refer to 'ecstatic joy', so clearly, I could have used a better term. I believe for it to be a biblical reference it has to be preceded with the word "the", as in "The Rapture". I could be wrong, though, for I haven't read a bible for some time. It is a difficult read, especially the parts about Mr. and Mrs. Whom-begot.

Again, back to Novak and Plame. Evidently Novak was the first person to print the claim that Plame was a CIA operative in the media, and his ludicrous defense at the time was the CIA's NO was "a soft no, not a hard no".

As to BHS's claim that no crime was committed, even the CIA (along with almost everyone else) seems to think that there was. The following is an excerpt from an official letter from thr Director of Congressional Affairs, Stanley Moscowitz, to The Honorable John Conyers, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of representatives (30 January 2004) (this is taken from the book "The Politics of Truth", by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, (2004)

...By letter dated 16 September 2003, and in accordance with standard practice in such matters, the CIA informed the DoJ [Department of Justice] that the agency's investigation in this matter was complete, provided DoJ a memorandum setting forth the results of that investigation, and requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) undertake a criminal investigation of this matter. In a 29 September 2003 letter, DoJ  advised that the Counterespionage Section of the DoJ had requested that the FBI initiate an investigation of this matter.

Wilson claims that Novak spoke to an aquaintance of Wilson's in Washington, and when asked what Novak thought of the uranium contoversy and of Wilson, Novak replied:

"Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. The's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him".

When Wilson confronted Novak, Novak apologized (for telling a complete stranger his suspicions about Plame) and asked Wilson to confirm what he had heard from a CIA source. Later, Novak claims to have misspoken, and said it was 'two senior administration officials' that leaked the info.

[Guest eureka]

Cover your mouth when you yawn. That way you won't put your foot in it,

I will not look for linls, since, if you really are politically aware, as anyone in this Forum should be, you should be well aware of the polls that are done around elections. There were many during the last campaign showing second choices. The Liberals and NDP had a huge majority of those.

[shoop]

Cover your mouth when you yawn. That way you won't put your foot in it,

I will not look for linls, since, if you really are politically aware, as anyone in this Forum should be, you should be well aware of the polls that are done around elections. There were many during the last campaign showing second choices. The Liberals and NDP had a huge majority of those.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice. Cover your laziness and try and hide the stupidity of your claim with more insults. i.e. putting my foot in my mouth and a sideswipe at my "politcal awareness".

But I like how you are back down from "Take away the supporting vote for Harper and there is probably none that would make him a second choice." To a "huge majority" NOT having Harper as a second choice. Good backtrack on that one. What is your next step, from huge majority to most?

[Guest eureka]

I have backed down from nothing. Why don't you stop wiggling. And I am certainly not going to expend time and energy searching for what you should know.

[shoop]

I have backed down from nothing. Why don't you stop wiggling. And I am certainly not going to expend time and energy searching for what you should know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Moving from 'none' to 'a huge majority' didn't choose Harper as their second choice is a huge back down.

But you will expend time and energy on these boards. Hmmmm, me thinks it is because there is no support to be found for your silly, and baseless assertions. (Another post on your part saying you don't have the time or won't spend the time would be pretty lame. In the time it takes to post that on three different occasions would DEFINITELY be enough time to find support for your statement, IF it really existed. Too bad it doesn't...

ps, were am I wiggling? Man, you are weak.

[newbie]

A litlle background on Robert Novak: (from wikipedia)

Controversies and scandals

Novak has been frequently criticized as acting as a political operative of the Republican Party while posing as a journalist; his controversial public comments and actions both on and off the air have provoked critics from many groups. Novak also has been implicated in a number of political scandals and violations of journalistic ethics and standards, the most famous of which is the Plame affair.

* 1972 George McGovern

After a published anonymous quote from a Democratic senator calling 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern as being for "acid, amnesty, and abortion" was contested as fabricated, critics began deriding Evans and Novak's work as "Errors and No Facts."

* 1980 and 1992 Karl Rove, Novak connections

Twice Novak was reportedly involved in situations leading to Karl Rove being fired from political campaigns: first in 1980 from George H.W. Bush's vice-presidential campaign, and second in 1992, while working for Bush's reelection campaign. Both times Rove was fired from the staff for leaking campaign information to Novak. Rove and Novak both deny that Rove was the source.[5]

* 1996 and 2001 Robert Hanssen

Novak's loyalty to his sources was called into question after he revealed Robert Hanssen as the confidential source for some of his articles. Hanssen had served as the source for a column which attacked Janet Reno's role in an alleged cover-up of a campaign finance scandal in 1996.(New York Observer, August 6, 2001) Ironically, Novak indicated at the time that he felt justified in 'burning' his source because Hanssen was a traitor — he had been found guilty of selling state secrets, including the identities of covert operatives, to the Soviet Union. Novak also wondered whether he had been "set up" by Hanssen.

* 2003, Plame Affair

In 2003, he disclosed the identity of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame in his newspaper column. Novak reported the information was provided to him by "senior administration officials." The leak and allegations of a possible cover-up are currently being investigated. During 2005, there have been questions in the press regarding the apparent absence of focus on Novak by the special prosecutor Fitzgerald and the grand jury, specifically questions suggesting he may have already testified about his sources despite insisting publicly that he would not do so. Alternatively, it has been speculated, Fitzgerald is ultimately planning to target Novak for possibly colluding with his White House sources to tell the same story regarding the leak, which if true would constitute obstruction of justice.

* Main articles at: Plame affair, Plame scandal timeline

* 2004, Killian documents

Critics complain that Novak has been inconsistent as he insists it would violate journalistic ethics to reveal the source of the Plame leak, but later called on CBS to reveal the source of the memos where were part of the larger news story dealing with the president's evasion of National Guard service.

* March, 2004 race baiting of Richard Clarke

In March 2004, Novak insinuated on CNN's Crossfire that Richard Clarke had revealed government mistakes in his book dealing with the war against terrorism because he resented Condoleezza Rice's position as a black woman on the cabinet. [6]

* August, 2004 Swift Boat Veterans publisher also Novak's

In August 2004, after other journalists had reported on it, Novak admitted that his son, Alex Novak, is the Director of Marketing for the Swift Boat Veterans' publisher, Regnery Publishing. At the time he said that he didn't "think it relevant." Two months later Salon.com reported that Regnery's owner is also the publisher of Novak's own US$297 (annual rate) newsletter and that Novak is on the board of a foundation whose chief holdings are the stock of Regnery's parent company. [7]

* May, 2005, Senate filibuster debate

In May 2005, Novak raised a stir when he used a Holocaust analogy to attack the negotiations between several Democratic and Republican Senators to reach a compromise in an ongoing debate over the filibustering of judicial nominations. The compromise would reportedly involve several Democrats agreeing to support the confirmation of some, but not all, of the nominees that they had previously filibustered, in return for several Republicans agreeing to vote against a proposed rules change that would remove the filibuster entirely (the "nuclear option"). Novak said agreeing to confirm some of the judges but not others was "...like going to a concentration camp and picking out which people go to the death chamber", a comparison the Anti-Defamation League termed "abhorrent" in demanding an apology. [8]

[edit]

2005 Inside Politics incident

On August 4, 2005, Novak walked off the set during a live broadcast of the CNN show Inside Politics, on which he appeared along with Democratic strategist and analyst James Carville (whom Novak had debated with for years on Crossfire), and moderator Ed Henry.

During a discussion of Republican representative Katherine Harris's just-announced 2006 campaign for the U.S. Senate and her claim that newspapers tried to tarnish her image by manipulating photos of her, Novak claimed he had experienced the same thing leading to a skeptical response from Carville.

Novak responded by saying "don't be too sure she's going to lose...all the establishment's against her and I've seen these Republican – anti-establishment candidates who do pretty well." Novak mentioned Ronald Reagan and Tom Coburn before seeing Carville preparing to talk. Novak cut into his comments and said "Just let me finish what I'm going to say, James. Please, I know you hate to hear me, but you have..." Carville cut in and said that Novak "got to show these right-wingers that he's got backbone, you know. It's why The Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em you're tough."

Novak responded "Well, I think that's bullshit. And I hate that." Novak then removed his microphone and walked off the set. Novak later denied that the CIA leak case was the reason for his walkout.

However, Novak had avoided comment on the Plame affair in previous interviews by claiming that his lawyers had advised him not to speak. Reporters interviewing Novak were warned that any attempt to raise his role in the Plame affair would cause the interview to be imediately terminated [9]. On August 1st however, Novak wrote a column on the affair in his Chicago Sun-Times column (“Ex-CIA official’s remark is wrong”). The fact that Novak had addressed the affair in print meant that CNN could not allow his previous "legal advice" excuse to stand without comment.

In response to the incident, CNN suspended Novak indefinitely, calling the outburst "inexcusable and unacceptable," and apologized to its viewers.

A prime candidate for FOX news. Should fit right in.